Anyone running against Trump in 2020 is just trying to line their pockets..who should challenge?

2020 is a given for Donald Trump. Fact. He will pull the same people he did in 2016 despite reports. In fact, based on people I know, he is going to
pick up some demographic numbers and could even take a normally blue state in 2020.

Why?

Because no one running right now has a chance in hell at winning. Please, tell me, who you would want to be on stage from the DNC pool to debate the
sitting president. Who would it be? It is all about the Benjamin's as AOC states but for the current election cycle not to make a difference like
they should after being elected.

The DNC is looking at over 20 people already who think they will challenge Trump. Well, at least when they are on CNBC or a local news channel. One
that makes their view look good. Because they sure could use it. This is all about money and a last shot before it is all over.

No one in the GOP field is crazy enough to challenge him and if they are then we know they are certifiable right? Name a GOP member who will step up
to challenge Trump. This will be fun.

So, please tell me....is 2020 set in stone or is something else in play.

a reply to: matafuchs
Furthermore there is a very specific social difference between Republicans and Democrats in general that is not being taken into account. The large
field of candidates for the Republican nomination increased the viability of the winner. The Democrats saw this and are banking on having a large
field of candidates also resulting in a more highly viable candidate. However using this parallel, and trying to apply it to the Democrat's voting
base will do the opposite.

I can back this claim up with data from 2010, from a source that may seem odd to people who like an analysis data.
source: theblog.okcupid.com...

The most important part for my claim is the following at the very end of that article.

Finally, let’s take a look at OkCupid’s specialty: matching people up. Our final analysis will be to exclude explicitly political questions and
see how groups of different ideologies match with themselves; i.e. how compatible they find each other. Below is a matrix showing person-to-person
match percentages for the various points in the political plane: How Points In The Political Plane Match With Themselves As you can see, Republicans
get along with each other quite a bit better than Democrats do, even on non-political issues. We’ve used match percentages like these to facilitate
over 100,000 marriages in the last few years; their accuracy is pretty well-tested. If you’re wondering, the site-wide average is 60. We calculate
these numbers by posing a series of questions to our users.

Just to give you a sense of what these questions are like, here are the top three most important (by user vote):
1. If you had to name your greatest motivation in life so far, what would it be? • Love • Wealth • Expression • Knowledge
2. Which makes for a better relationship? Passion Dedication
3. Are you happy with your life? Yes No

The fact that Democrats can’t reach a common consensus on some multiple-choice Q&As may speak volumes about why they struggle to reach a common
consensus when it comes to government.

From this and the chart contained within that section, we can see that having a large number of candidates will only divide their party further. This
is unlike that which occurred for the Republicans base, where a large number of candidates unified their party.

Now for the possible conjecture/prediction on my part from observation. In the Democrat's nomination process, there were a lot of people who
supported and were excited for both Hillary and Bernie. However after Hillary won the nomination, you had a significant portion of people who were
fired up for Bernie simply throw up their hands and sit out the actual election even in spite of Bernie telling his followers to vote for Hillary.
Now imagine this same process occurring with 20 candidates instead of the 5 that the Democrats started out with. Many of these 20 candidates are
rather congenial and could inspire a cult following. The result would be an even further divided electorate, that is even less likely to compromise
and vote for the eventual winner.

I thought the same thing. I had to look into campaign finance laws to see what happens to all the $ left over. What happens is a lot of these people
pay people fake (read, VERY HIGH) salaries or contracts, and maybe to businesses as well. It can later be laundered back to them either in a business
they own, or through consulting fees or whatever. It's a huge scam.

I would love to see Michelle Obama as next president. That would push you Trumpsters really over the edge.

From an outsider/overseas point of view.

Who the heck is Michelle Obama? Oh,,got it,,,sorry,,, is she the wife of a former president? I think that's a bigly fail. (look at history) And,,,I
don't need trump. So I really don't care but if the Obama lady was running and actually won, I guess it would be because she is really really a smart
'person'. Really really smart.

I agree but for a different reason.
After the Special Council report is turned in and it shows nothing damning for Trump, Trump will again be able to portray himself as "the outsider",
and point to the fisa abuse and bs investigations as proof. He will be able to point out law enforcement abuse and paint himself as the
anti-corruption candidate.
The sad part is the dems gave him and continue to give him the ammo for this.
He will get sympathy from the american public for the abuse from law enforcement.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.